RE: Health Care, the American way...

RE: Health Care, the American way... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 5:47:21 PM)
~FR Oh FFS 300,000 savings a year? Really? When they dont even pay that much??? Im about to blow some minds. Want to talk about people being sheeple? A whole bunch of you bought into the "lawsuit excuse". Researchers led by Dr. Anupam Jena, a physician at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, analyzed malpractice data over a 14-year period for all physicians covered by a large malpractice insurance provider. They estimated more than 75 percent of doctors in specialties with a low risk of malpractice and 99 percent of doctors in high-risk practices will be sued. ..... The study also found that while the risk of a malpractice claim is high, about 80 percent of claims never result in any payment to plaintiffs. Average payments ranged from $117,832 for dermatologists to $520,923 for pediatrics. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/risk-malpractice-claims-high-physicians/story?id=14327391#.UaaaPNLVDv5 Malpractice insurance rates dipped by an average of 4 percent across the country in 2007, according to actuarial research recently presented to the Physician Insurers Association of America. But in primary care specialties, the cost of insurance continued to be one of the highest practice expenses. Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians all paid a median of $12,500 annually for med-mal coverage, based on the survey. Ob/gyns forked over more than four times as much, because of their propensity to be sued. GPs, many of whom are older and phasing out of practice, paid just $7,500. http://medicaleconomics.modernmedicine.com/medical-economics/news/clinical/practice-management/2008-exclusive-survey%E2%80%94malpractice-premiums-dropp#sthash.vy8QdZNC.dpuf High-cost States The medical malpractice insurance rates are the highest in states like Nevada and Florida. However, the rates still do vary from low to large depending upon the specific field of specialization. As per the last year statistics, Gynecologists have been the ones who paid the highest rates, ranging from $85,000 to as much as $200,000. A doctor in internal medicine is also expected to pay over $50,000 per year; this amount is too much if compared to $4000 that internal medicine doctors pay in Minnesota. Other specialists who are paying huge sum of money for medical negligence insurance include general practice doctors, pediatricians, and general internists. Average-cost States Pennsylvania is one of those states where medical malpractice insurance costs are neither too high nor too low. The obstetricians and gynecologists who are practicing in these states are currently paying over $60,000 for coverage. Internal medicine doctors are paying somewhere between $6000 and $12000. Even the rates for general surgery can be as low as $25,000 per year that can go up to $40,000. Low-cost States California and Minnesota are among some of the states where medical malpractice insurance costs are the lowest; the rates though still vary depending upon demographics and claims differences. General surgeons in the state of California are currently paying somewhere between $20000 and $32000; In Minnesota, the cost is only around $10000. Obstetricians and gynecologists are the highest paying doctors in these California; it is costing them over $50000 per year, which is still much lower as compared to other states. However, OB/GYNs who are practicing in Minnesota are enjoying a very low cost, which can be as low as just $15000. http://www.legalinfo-online.com/the-cost-of-medical-malpractice-insurance-in-different-states/

UllrsIshtar -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 5:53:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr A person has studied their ass off for years to learn enough about the human body to help me when I'm sick or in pain. They make a diagnosis and suggest a treatement - all in good faith - and they make a mistake and I feel justified in suing the crap out of them? Ridiculous! I absolutely agree 100%. If a doctor is really malpracticing, he should be should be reviewed by a board of his peers, and they should decide on the appropriate actions (loss of license, restitution, whatever). A courtroom has no business in a matter like that, unless the review board find him criminally negligent.

shannie -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 6:07:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess I believe (someone from Canada or another jurisdiction that has a single payer system help me out here) the way that this issue is handled in places like Canada is that medical malpractice awards are capped. This allows people to still sue for malpractice but not get the ridiculously huge awards that the American jury system is notorious for. This does help keep costs down. Caps on malpractice awards don't keep costs down. They keep profits up.

tj444 -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 6:41:32 PM)
Here is the article comparing insurance costs.. in Canada, the major medical malpractice insurer is not-for-profit so that could also make a difference in the costs to docs.. there are a few other differences regarding the legal system which affects claims also.. http://www.tampabay.com/news/canada-keeps-malpractice-cost-in-check/1021977

subfever -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 7:28:24 PM)
quote: Health Care, the American way... Ah yes... about 1/5th of our GDP is predicated upon feeding off of sick and dying people, and it's a growing sector. Isn't it just lovely? Has anyone done a search lately, to determine what percentage of bankruptcies are due primarily to unpaid medical bills?

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 7:30:42 PM)
A study released Thursday [pdf] by the American Journal of Medicine finds a huge increase—nearly 20 percent—in medical bankruptcies between 2001 and 2007. Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were tied to medical expenses. Three-quarters of those who filed for bankruptcies in 2007 had health insurance. Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. […] In 2007, before the current economic downturn, an American family filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of illness every 90 seconds; three quarters of them were insured. Since 2001, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems has increased by 50%. Nearly two thirds of all bankruptcies are now linked to illness. How did medical problems propel so many middle-class, insured Americans toward bankruptcy? For 92% of the medically bankrupt, high medical bills directly contributed to their bankruptcy. Many families with continuous cover- age found themselves under-insured, responsible for thou- sands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Others had private coverage but lost it when they became too sick to work. Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year. Income loss due to illness also was common, but nearly always coupled with high medical bills. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/05/1051848/-Medical-bills-cause-62-percent-of-nbsp-bankruptcies#

subfever -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 7:35:05 PM)
quote: A study released Thursday [pdf] by the American Journal of Medicine finds a huge increase—nearly 20 percent—in medical bankruptcies between 2001 and 2007. Sixty-two percent of all bankruptcies filed in 2007 were tied to medical expenses. Three-quarters of those who filed for bankruptcies in 2007 had health insurance. Using a conservative definition, 62.1% of all bankruptcies in 2007 were medical; 92% of these medical debtors had medical debts over $5000, or 10% of pretax family income. The rest met criteria for medical bankruptcy because they had lost significant income due to illness or mortgaged a home to pay medical bills. Most medical debtors were well educated, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. Three quarters had health insurance. Using identical definitions in 2001 and 2007, the share of bankruptcies attributable to medical problems rose by 49.6%. In logistic regression analysis controlling for demographic factors, the odds that a bankruptcy had a medical cause was 2.38-fold higher in 2007 than in 2001. […] In 2007, before the current economic downturn, an American family filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of illness every 90 seconds; three quarters of them were insured. Since 2001, the proportion of all bankruptcies attributable to medical problems has increased by 50%. Nearly two thirds of all bankruptcies are now linked to illness. How did medical problems propel so many middle-class, insured Americans toward bankruptcy? For 92% of the medically bankrupt, high medical bills directly contributed to their bankruptcy. Many families with continuous cover- age found themselves under-insured, responsible for thou- sands of dollars in out-of-pocket costs. Others had private coverage but lost it when they became too sick to work. Nationally, a quarter of firms cancel coverage immediately when an employee suffers a disabling illness; another quarter do so within a year. Income loss due to illness also was common, but nearly always coupled with high medical bills. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/01/05/1051848/-Medical-bills-cause-62-percent-of-nbsp-bankruptcies# There you have it.

cloudboy -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 9:49:01 PM)
quote: It will be interesting to see just how well he does. I'd expect, though, that if enough practitioners do it, government shall make it illegal. You act like you don't live in the USA when you make such comments. That's how I operate my law practice and that's how most other sole proprietors operate as well. None of us expect to be closed down.

cloudboy -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 9:53:19 PM)
quote: I agree with DaddySatyr...so many people sue doctors for just about anything and they have to be so careful how they treat a patient..they are walking a thin line when trying to heal a patient...do too much and the person has a bad reaction..they get sued...do too little and the patient doesn't heal....they get sued...they are not miracle workers...medicine is not an exact science. This is a fallacy. Do you realize that it costs $20,000.00 just to file a medical malpractice lawsuit. This costly bar weeds out most frivolous claims right out of the gate. Also, Tort reform has not lowered insurance rates or the cost of medical care anywhere that it's been implemented.

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 11:33:36 PM)
They would rather believe the hype of malpractice insurance companies.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/29/2013 11:47:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy This is a fallacy. Do you realize that it costs $20,000.00 just to file a medical malpractice lawsuit. This costly bar weeds out most frivolous claims right out of the gate. Also, Tort reform has not lowered insurance rates or the cost of medical care anywhere that it's been implemented. I don't know, counselor. I see a lot of attornies advertising on TV to do mal practice cases. I would tend to disagree with you, just on that anecdotal observation but if you could give me some numbers from a credible source? ETA: But, on top of that, what does it cost doctors/insurance companies to defend lawsuits that aren't successful (I found some slightly out-dated numbers on that)? Aside from that it doesn't address the fact that the lowest malpractice insurance numbers I could find were over $60,000 per year for $100,000 of coverage. I'm not a doctor, obviously but based upon some of the judgements I've seen, if I were a doctor, I think I'd carry a minimum of $1,000,000. Also, I never really got into tort reform (although I believe it's a necessity). I blamed American people who'd rather sue their way into the American dream than work for it. I think it's one of the reasons juries award such out-landish awards in court; a part of them hopes that some day they'll "strike it rich". Peace and comfort, Michael

tazzygirl -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 12:19:04 AM)
A new study found no evidence that health care costs in Texas dipped after a 2003 constitutional amendment limited payouts in medical malpractice lawsuits, despite claims made to voters by some backers of tort reform. http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/new-study-tort-reform-has-not-reduced-health-care-/nRpcp/ http://personalfinance.costhelper.com/medical-malpractice-lawsuit.html http://www.medmalfacts.com/facts-and-myths/

thishereboi -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 4:49:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar quote: ORIGINAL: MyMasterStephen I need to go to see the doctor, with an earache or strep throat or anything more complicated, and it doesn't cost me a penny. So your taxes are zero too then? For some of us, yes. [:)] quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Just cause you pay it upfront, doesn't mean you didn't pay for it. If you never have a job and lived on benefits, you wouldn't have paid a single red cent. quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar Though, what you pay upfront is far far far less than what people here in the US pay. In the UK, it's 12% of earnings above the tax threshhold. From what I've heard from friends in the US, sometimes the health insurance is costing them as much as 50% of what they are earning. Add to that the cost of every visit to a doctor. Then the cost of every med in a prescription. That's scandalous! I have never heard of anyone paying 50% of their income for health insurance. Which company was that?

Aswad -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 6:27:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yachtie Patients with an earache or strep throat can spend $300 at their local hospital emergency room, or promptly get an appointment at his office and pay $50, he said. Compared to $30 in Norway for a specialist or $23 for a general practicioner. Or $250 for an MRI at a private clinic here, including the radiologist. The cap is $500/year, above which universal healthcare kicks in. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Really? You would go into an OR without legal protection? Wow! That's the norm where I live. You can't sue the doctors here. Or, you can bring a civil suit, but it won't net you a dime, most likely, and you're not likely to get anywhere, unless the doctor was intentionally criminal (mere criminal negligence won't suffice, though it will get him banned from practice). You can report them to the medical review board, which actually happens to work fairly well already, and the threshold for banning a doctor from practicing medicine is lower here. If you've sustained lasting harm, from any source, including doctors, then you can apply for reparations from the welfare system, limited to some $35.000 plus associated costs. This is pretty rare to see done in connection with medical care, so most such reparations are awarded in connection with lasting harm from violence. Indeed, we have a lot less malpractice overall, from what my reading suggests. It also isn't a malpracticing doctor's money we want, it's his licence to practice. That may be part of keeping the rates of malpractice down. quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr My understanding (and now I should note that this is sarcasm, lest someone think it serious in the wrong way) is that the American courts are effectively the welfare lottery on that side of the pond, for commoners with the good fortune to be eligible for it through malpractice, car accidents or other lucky breaks, pun intended. The main problem with this being that the costs are borne, not through the cost of the tickets to the lottery (that's free), but by pairing winning tickets with losing tickets and savaging the loser to pay out to the winner, with a handsome fee to everyone involved that didn't have a ticket to begin with. Insurance is bought seperately, and doesn't appear to figure much in anything, except as a form of savings that has a negative interest rate. Where I live, above the zero tax point (ca. $15.000 per year per household), you have to pay taxes, and healthcare for all citizens is part of what that tax buys you, along with emergency healthcare for all non-citizen residents and welfare (this for citizens only). There's no lottery. No tickets to buy or prizes to win. The courts settle grievances, not misfortunes. It's kind of like having insurance, except it actually works, and the interest on the investment of the tax earnings feeds back into the system, and you get bulk discounts, and, and, and... well, you get the idea. It's understood that shit happens, and you don't sue or get paid when it does. It's understood that people- no matter their profession- that routinely cause shit to happen, or cause it three times through negligence or incompetence, or cause it once through criminal negligence or unsuitability, are not going to be allowed to continue to do so. It's understood that when shit happens to you, there will be five million people getting you back on your feet. Unfortunately, it's not always understood that there's a difference between shit happening to you and you sticking your head in it, but from a financial perspective it still works out anyway, as people tend to share their misery and misfortune in various ways, making it cost effective to help out regardless. As Ishtar pointed out in the thread on Denmark, their 11% covers 100% of the population, while the American 18% is for a substantially smaller fraction. One of those two shops smart. The other does not, and makes up for it by having courts. I note the ones that oppose universalized healthcare and welfare are often the same ones that complain about the abuses of the legal system in the US, which is kind of perverse: the crabs at the bottom of the bucket are always going to do what they can, including pulling all the other crabs down with them, in the hopes they will be the one to get out alive. Ignoring that reality ensures nobody does. IWYW, — Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 6:44:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl Im about to blow some minds. Want to talk about people being sheeple? A whole bunch of you bought into the "lawsuit excuse". I will admit I was duped. Thanks for setting me straight on my misconceptions. That being said, if there's a perception that it's real, then that perception has real effects, even though what it perceives is incorrect. What makes headlines is the lawsuit lottery winners, not the losers, nor the low rates of actual winners. The cost issue is a genuine problem. You cite malpractice insurance rates (in some states) upward of $50.000 per year on average, more than five typical households make in a year. The median was $12.500 per year. For comparison, a starting wage for general practicioners in Norway is- if memory serves- about $60.000 per year. Those $12.500 would be about equal to the total income tax here for someone making $60.000 per year. Don't tell me those costs aren't going to be defrayed via the healthcare users (i.e. the general population). IWYW, — Aswad.

MrBukani -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 7:04:15 AM)
If we keep feeding livestock with antibiotics, healthcarecosts will keep rising out of proportion. No matter what system you endorse.

Aswad -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 7:55:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrBukani If we keep feeding livestock with antibiotics, healthcarecosts will keep rising out of proportion. No matter what system you endorse. I'm usually the last to credit the US with food quality standards, but attributing the higher cost of healthcare to the use of antibiotics is ludicrous. Bear in mind that we're not talking about dollars spent. We're talking about the percentage of GDP, the per capita cost, the cost of individual procedures, and so forth. In every way, on every level, you are getting less healthcare for what you spend, and fewer of you are getting what you need, compared to Europe and Canada. Even if you were right, your idea would affect what you need, not what you pay for it (indeed, the cost of antibiotics will drop due to livestock use, as a matter of economies of scale). IWYW, — Aswad.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 8:21:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad You can't sue the doctors here. Or, you can bring a civil suit, but it won't net you a dime, most likely, and you're not likely to get anywhere, unless the doctor was intentionally criminal (mere criminal negligence won't suffice, though it will get him banned from practice). You can report them to the medical review board, which actually happens to work fairly well already, and the threshold for banning a doctor from practicing medicine is lower here. If you've sustained lasting harm, from any source, including doctors, then you can apply for reparations from the welfare system, limited to some $35.000 plus associated costs. This is pretty rare to see done in connection with medical care, so most such reparations are awarded in connection with lasting harm from violence. Indeed, we have a lot less malpractice overall, from what my reading suggests. It also isn't a malpracticing doctor's money we want, it's his licence to practice. That may be part of keeping the rates of malpractice down. <snip> IWYW, — Aswad. That is fascinating, imo. Completely different from the US. Here, it's all about the $$. I honestly wonder what impact it would have if the only results of a successful malpractice suit were loss of license to practice and a cash penalty for each year of life "left" between current age and life expectancy. Very interesting thing to ponder.

vincentML -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 8:41:05 AM)
quote: That kind of case (I'm not doubting or disparaging but I'd like to see a link supporting it's happened recently) absolutely falls into the category of gross wrecklessness and dis-regard and I agree that such a person has some kind of claim. Michael, this 2010 article suggests that Operating Room errors are an ongoing problem. Over a period of 6.5 years, doctors in Colorado alone operated on the wrong patient at least 25 times and on the wrong part of the body in another 107 patients, according to the study, which appears in the Archives of Surgery. This article from December 2012 found that preventable Surgical Errors Occur More Than 4,000 Times A Year In The U.S.

evesgrden -> RE: Health Care, the American way... (5/30/2013 8:44:10 AM)
quote: I believe (someone from Canada or another jurisdiction that has a single payer system help me out here) the way that this issue is handled in places like Canada is that medical malpractice awards are capped. This allows people to still sue for malpractice but not get the ridiculously huge awards that the American jury system is notorious for. This does help keep costs down. In Canada, it's not just about capping awards. The issue lies more with the Canadian Bar Association. Lawyers do not get a piece of the litiginous pie. They can charge a flat fee or hourly fee, but their compensation has nothing to do with how much the plaintiff gets. Law is supposed to be a noble profession, ergo it would be boorishly tacky to have a system where the vigor of ones legal efforts were determined by persoal greed as opposed to client necessity and concepts of justice.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875